Rubicon: A river in Wisconsin

[DarrinS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022406520.html




The magnificent turmoil now gripping statehouses in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and soon others marks an epic political moment. The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions and, remarkably, our muddled, gridlocked, allegedly broken politics have yielded singular clarity.

At the federal level, President Obama's budget makes clear that Democrats are determined to do nothing about the debt crisis, while House Republicans have announced that beyond their proposed cuts in discretionary spending, their April budget will actually propose real entitlement reform. Simultaneously, in Wisconsin and other states, Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension and health-care obligations, while Democrats are full-throated in support of the public-employee unions crying, "Hell, no."

A choice, not an echo: Democrats desperately defending the status quo; Republicans charging the barricades.

Wisconsin is the epicenter. It began with economic issues. When Gov. Scott Walker proposed that state workers contribute more to their pension and health-care benefits, he started a revolution. Teachers called in sick. Schools closed. Demonstrators massed at the capitol. Democratic senators fled the state to paralyze the Legislature.

Unfortunately for them, that telegenic faux-Cairo scene drew national attention to the dispute - and to the sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years. They were contributing a fifth of a penny on a dollar of wages to their pensions and one-fourth what private-sector workers pay for health insurance.

The unions quickly understood that the more than 85 percent of Wisconsin not part of this privileged special-interest group would not take kindly to "public servants" resisting adjustments that still leave them paying less for benefits than private-sector workers. They immediately capitulated and claimed they were only protesting the other part of the bill, the part about collective-bargaining rights.

Indeed. Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state's financial straits - a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years - did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century-long power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain.

In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largess in the next election. It's the perfect cozy setup.

To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, Walker's bill would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them are gone. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary.

Recognizing this threat to union power, the Democratic Party is pouring money and fury into the fight. Fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers are unionized. The Democrats' strength lies in government workers, who now constitute a majority of union members and provide massive support to the party. For them, Wisconsin represents a dangerous contagion.

Hence the import of the current moment - its blinding clarity. Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang on to the gains of their glory years - from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking.

Obama's Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell, no.

We have heard everyone - from Obama's own debt commission to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - call the looming debt a mortal threat to the nation. We have watched Greece self-immolate. We can see the future. The only question has been: When will the country finally rouse itself?

Amazingly, the answer is: now. Led by famously progressive Wisconsin - Scott Walker at the state level and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan at the congressional level - a new generation of Republicans has looked at the debt and is crossing the Rubicon. Recklessly principled, they are putting the question to the nation: Are we a serious people?

[boutons_deux]

Of course, der Kraut Hammer ist gute, ya!

He's a paid shill for the VRWC.

The unions, private, public, didn't cause the fiscal crisis at all levels.

It was the VRWC's financial arm.

So busting the unions, which also means (to continue) busting to some degree all of the lower 98%, won't fix the fiscal crisis.

The VRWC's financial arm created the crisis, and we now seeing VRWC execute "crisis capitalism" where the capitalists exploit a crisis to their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I stopped at Krauthammer

[ChumpDumper]

tk;dr

[TeyshaBlue]

Let's embrace Krugman, but dismiss Krauthammer?

Really?

[RandomGuy]

Man talk about a revealing reference.

"Crossing the Rubicon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon) was what Ceasar did in order to seize power from the nominal Roman Senate, and moved it from a Republic to a monarchy.

I'm sure this subtlety was not intended on the part of Mr. Krauthammer, as I doubt he wants to draw a parallel from a tyrant in the making storming the Republic to impose his will to that of Governor Walker.

Anyone with any common sense knows this entire ploy is about pure, naked, unabashed politics, and not the budget of this year or any year.

It is about taking another step by the right in this country to destroy the organized unions that generally oppose rightist policies.

This spiel downplays the concessions the employees are willing to make, and plays up their power into something threatening the very existance of the country.

http://www.globaldonimation.com/images/ninjaplease.jpg

The main assertions underlying his argument are, to put it mildly, self serving exaggerations.

Pablum for the converted.

It was inevitable that the people who suck up that pablum would regurgitate it here.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hopefully we repeat the Wisconsin example in Texas.

[ChumpDumper]

Which union needs to be busted in Texas?

[CosmicCowboy]

Unions were needed originally to counter predatory private employers.

Public sector unions are totally unnecessary. Politicians simply trade excessive benefits for votes.

It really IS that simple.

[ChumpDumper]

Unions were needed originally to counter predatory private employers.

Public sector unions are totally unnecessary. Politicians simply trade excessive benefits for votes.

It really IS that simple.You didn't answer the question.

[CosmicCowboy]

You didn't answer the question.

Of course I did.

ALL public employee unions.

[RandomGuy]

Let's embrace Krugman, but dismiss Krauthammer?

Really?

The guy summarizes the Republican stance fairly well.

I even agree with a good chunk of it.

I don't, however, buy the bit where the state's financial straights came solely from the "giveaways" to the unions.

I do think that public workers should contribute to their retirement and other side benefits. I do think that they have gotten concessions that, overall, are clearly unaffordable in the long run.

Most people, when confronted with a problem, and given the right information are willing to do what it takes to make things right.

What galls me is that the governor is treating the unions and people in them like some kind of scum that need to be "shown their place".

I think the people in those unions, if someone sat down with them, worked with them, and gave them the information that they needed to make a decision about what was affordable for the state, would make the right call.

Instead of doing that, he goes off on an emotionally appealing crusade, justifying a paternalistic power-grab and obvious attempt to reduce the influence of your political rivals as some sort of fiscal responsibility.

The Obama administration got slammed by the right for "not letting a good crisis go to waste". That is exactly what is happening here.

If the Republican governor and state representatives were really concerned about fiscal responsibility, there are so many ways they could address that besides this bill.

That none of those other ways of fixing the budget seem to have been considered says all I need to know.

[RandomGuy]

Of course I did.

ALL public employee unions.

You most certainly did not answer the question.

How many public employee unions do we have in Texas?

(I don't know of any)

[DarrinS]

Why are unions even necessary?


Sincerely,

75+% of us NOT in unions.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course I did.

ALL public employee unions.Which ones have collective bargaining rights in Texas as they have in Wisconsin?

[ChumpDumper]

So you all agree that Walker's exclusion of police and firefighter unions from these cuts is hypocritical and likely politically motivated.

Nice.

[CosmicCowboy]

You most certainly did not answer the question.

How many public employee unions do we have in Texas?

(I don't know of any)

:lmao

Are you really THAT ignorant? Teachers, State Employees, city employees, bus drivers, policemen, firemen...ALL are union.

[boutons_deux]

Did I hear "Krugman"?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/16/opinion/Krugman_New/Krugman_New-articleInline.jpg

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Here’s a thought: maybe Madison, Wis., isn’t Cairo after all. Maybe it’s Baghdad — specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.

As many readers may recall, the results were spectacular — in a bad way. Instead of focusing on the urgent problems of a shattered economy and society, which would soon descend into a murderous civil war, those Bush appointees were obsessed with imposing a conservative ideological vision. Indeed, with looters still prowling the streets of Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, told a Washington Post reporter that one of his top priorities was to “corporatize and privatize state-owned enterprises” — Mr. Bremer’s words, not the reporter’s — and to “wean people from the idea the state supports everything.”

The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein’s best-selling book “The Shock Doctrine,” which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.

Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.

In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor’s budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.

For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker’s anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?

The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage — aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum — has slowed the bum’s rush. If Mr. Walker’s plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.

But don’t expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you all agree that Walker's exclusion of police and firefighter unions from these cuts is hypocritical and likely politically motivated.

Nice.

I agree that police and fire should have been included.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hopefully we repeat the Wisconsin example in Texas.

Texas ranks near last in education, number of people insured, lowest taxes in country yet still have 15 billion dollar budget deficit..that texas?

[DarrinS]

Lol @ Krugman article starting off by comparing Wisconsin to Iraq. Between Krauthammer and Krugman, who puts forth a more cogent argument?

[CosmicCowboy]

Texas ranks last in education, number of people insured, lowest taxes yet still have 15 billion dollar budget deficit..that texas?

And you are an unfortunate example of our ignorant masses.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Are you really THAT ignorant? Teachers, State Employees, city employees, bus drivers, policemen, firemen...ALL are union.


Which ones have collective bargaining rights in Texas as they have in Wisconsin?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And you are an unfortunate example of our ignorant masses.

what am ignorant of? Texas ranks at the bottom of any catgeory dealing with the poor and children.. that is a fact.. and you call me the ignorant one..

I'd run away from your last comment as well..

[RandomGuy]

Hopefully we repeat the Wisconsin example in Texas.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-newspaper/texas-news/texplainer-can-wisconsin-happen-here/


Hey, Texplainer: The Wisconsin governor’s fight with the public and government employees there got me to wondering whether our public employees are unionized. And what do they pay for their pensions and health care insurance?


Hey, Texplainer: The Wisconsin governor’s fight with the public and government employees there got me to wondering whether our public employees are unionized. And what do they pay for their pensions and health care insurance?

Gov. Scott Walker should come to Texas, where much of what he’s seeking already exists. As a right-to-work state, Texas prohibits unions and employees from making union membership and/or the payment of dues mandatory as a condition of employment. The right to bargain collectively — which Walker is trying to strip from some public and state employees — is also generally restricted. It isn’t even allowed among state employees. No public employee in Texas may legally go on strike. Not surprisingly, unions have significantly less power here and in other right-to-work states than in labor strongholds like Wisconsin.

Still, some workers in Texas are unionized — about 5.4 percent of the total labor force here (including private and public jobs) belongs to a union, compared to 14.2 of Wisconsin’s total labor force. Firefighters and police officers in most big Texas cities have collective bargaining rights, says Ed Sills, spokesman for Texas AFL-CIO, as do Houston’s city employees. They have that right because the municipalities have voted to allow it.

...

While public and government workers face increases in what they will have to pay for their benefits, there is also a real likelihood of significant layoffs. An estimated 100,000 school district jobs and nearly 10,000 state worker positions could be eliminated as the state works to close its projected shortfall of between $15 billion and $27 billion.

“The bigger problem is the way the budget is proposed now in the House and Senate it simply going to hack away tens of thousands of jobs,” Sills says. “It could propel Texas’ unemployment rate significantly as well. One hundred and ten thousand is a significant amount. It could bump Texas’ unemployment rate up to 10 percent.”



FYI.

[CosmicCowboy]

what am ignorant of? Texas ranks at the bottom of any catgeory dealing with the poor and children.. that is a fact.. and you call me the ignorant one

Look at your rankings and then check their geographical location. Notice anything the lower ones seem to have in common?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Look at your rankings and then check their geographical location. Notice anything the lower ones seem to have in common?

so you were wrong..

[CosmicCowboy]

I know in San Antonio you have 55 year old firemen retiring at 88% of income and full health benefits.

[CosmicCowboy]

so you were wrong..

I'm not wrong. Are you just too stupid to see the common denominator?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm not wrong. Are you just too stupid to see the common denominator?

you want WI to become more like texas.. and I pointed out the horrible way texas treats the poor and children..you were wrong..

[ChumpDumper]

I know in San Antonio you have 55 year old firemen retiring at 88% of income and full health benefits.So you know one group in one city in Texas is a member of a union with collective bargaining rights.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Are you really THAT ignorant? Teachers, State Employees, city employees, bus drivers, policemen, firemen...ALL are union.


WHO WE ARE: TSEU is a 12,000+ member organization of state employees.

Out of something like 156,000 state employees.

Not sure about local bus driver unions or police unions or fire unions.

I would imagine unionization %'s would be roughly the same.

How are unions that don't have the power to strike and only represent a small fraction of government employees a problem?

[CosmicCowboy]

you want WI to become more like texas.. and I pointed out the horrible way texas treats the poor and children..you were wrong..

You quoted education and poverty statistics. Are you too stupid to understand that when you live in a border state and have a constant flood of poor, non-english speaking illegal immigrants coming into your state that it skews the numbers when compared to other states that don't?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You quoted education and poverty statistics. Are you too stupid to understand that when you live in a border state and have a constant flood of poor, non-english speaking illegal immigrants coming into your state that it skews the numbers when compared to other states that don't?

So it's someone else's fault.... got it.

what has perry done to change any of this? Other than remain quiet when bush was in office to then all of a sudden complain when obama came into office..

[Wild Cobra]

Why are unions even necessary?


Sincerely,

75+% of us NOT in unions.
Oh, that's a no-brainer.

Unions provide protection to lazy jackasses that would otherwise be fired, in a job that they had to show accountability for.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh, that's a no-brainer.

Unions provide protection to lazy jackasses that would otherwise be fired, in a job that they had to show accountability for.

and you know this how? Do you know anyone peronsally fitting your description?

[RandomGuy]

I know in San Antonio you have 55 year old firemen retiring at 88% of income and full health benefits.

... if they have put in 33 years at the Department and started at age 22.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/safd/ffwagesandbenefits.asp?res=1440&ver=true

How many years do you think they should work before retiring?

[Wild Cobra]

and you know this how? Do you know anyone peronsally fitting your description?
Yes, I work with several.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, I work with several.

you work for a union?

[Wild Cobra]

you work for a union?
Hell no.

I am a union member, and wish I didn't have to be. The ethics of some of the people around me are absolutely disgusting, and they couldn't make it in a non-union job.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not wrong. Are you just too stupid to see the common denominator?

You would get better discussions if you used the word "stupid" less.

Probably have lower blood pressure as well.

Well meant and freely given. :toast

[CosmicCowboy]

... if they have put in 33 years at the Department and started at age 22.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/safd/ffwagesandbenefits.asp?res=1440&ver=true

How many years do you think they should work before retiring?

Oh, I dunno...maybe 65-70 like the private sector? I assume you can do simple math. If that retiree at 55 lives to 85 that is approximately 2.5 million of benefits per retiree.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, I dunno...maybe 65-70 like the private sector? I assume you can do simple math. If that retiree at 55 lives to 85 that is approximately 2.5 million of benefits per retiree.

Hmmm.

Base pay 4412
multiplied by longitivity bonus of 18%
4412*1.18=5206.16

Multiplied by maximum vesting rate of 87.5%
5206.16*.875=4555

4555 times 12 months times 30 years (87 YO - 55 YO)
4555*12*30=1,639,940

Don't know where you got your figure of 2.5M

Lastly:

The math isn't quite that simple.

The actual amount of money required to pay out that 1.6M is significantly less than 1.6M.

(edit)

Here is the appropriate equation:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1555

(90% sure it is the correct one, double checking)

Ordinarily I would just stick it into excel, but excel formula guidance for NPV says it only goes up to 254 payments. 30 years times 12 months is 360 payments.

So I gots ta do it the hard way.

[Marcus Bryant]

How are unions that don't have the power to strike and only represent a small fraction of government employees a problem?

That's a big part of the problem I have with public sector unions, with a lesser, though not smaller, item the matter of collective bargaining against the taxpaying public.

Private sector unions have had their flaws, but at the end of the day in a free society labor absolutely has a right to organize as it so desires. Also, such unions can function/offer an apprenticeship like path to its members and uphold some degree of professionalism. I don't find the argument of improved wages that compelling because ultimately that leads to fewer employment opportunities and increased offshoring. Unions probably work best in a non-free trade environment.

[DarrinS]

Shattering myths in the PEU debate

je3UT7ol1JY

[TeyshaBlue]

The guy summarizes the Republican stance fairly well.

I even agree with a good chunk of it.

I don't, however, buy the bit where the state's financial straights came solely from the "giveaways" to the unions.

I do think that public workers should contribute to their retirement and other side benefits. I do think that they have gotten concessions that, overall, are clearly unaffordable in the long run.

Most people, when confronted with a problem, and given the right information are willing to do what it takes to make things right.

What galls me is that the governor is treating the unions and people in them like some kind of scum that need to be "shown their place".

I think the people in those unions, if someone sat down with them, worked with them, and gave them the information that they needed to make a decision about what was affordable for the state, would make the right call.

Instead of doing that, he goes off on an emotionally appealing crusade, justifying a paternalistic power-grab and obvious attempt to reduce the influence of your political rivals as some sort of fiscal responsibility.

The Obama administration got slammed by the right for "not letting a good crisis go to waste". That is exactly what is happening here.

If the Republican governor and state representatives were really concerned about fiscal responsibility, there are so many ways they could address that besides this bill.

That none of those other ways of fixing the budget seem to have been considered says all I need to know.

Yeah, I thought the association of the state's problems with the union bennies was a bit of a stretch as well. But I thought the analysis was pretty good as regards inverse incentives.. The bulk of the article seems to ring fairly true.

[boutons_deux]

Heritage VRWC stink tank has as much credibility as Fox Repug Propaganda network

[ChumpDumper]

Shattering myths in the PEU debate

je3UT7ol1JYHe wants to take away collective bargaining rights from some unions but not others.

Why is that, Darrin?

[RandomGuy]

Doing it the hard way yields, at a modest 3% return over inflation of 3%:
$1,083,098.62
If you distributed this amount in 360 equal payments of 4555 (+inflation over time), it would total this starting number.

To achieve that amount, the city would have to reserve much less than this figure over the 33 years of service.

To achieve this amount of reserve required for 33 years, would be about $875 per month.

Assuming a 6% return, this would mean an investment of some $208,000 in present day money over the course of 33 years.

Not entirely a "break the bank" scenario to me.

Time.
Value.
Of.
Money.

(edit)
The above calculation is what the City of San Antonio would have to set aside to save up for their fireman's pensions.
Assumptions:
22 year old firefighter works for 33 years and retires at age 55, living to age 85.
3% inflation, 6% investment yield for city reserving fund over the entire 68 year span

Cosmic Cowboy, using "simple math" came up with $2.5M future dollars spent on the fireman's pension.

I came up with $1.6M, to be arrived at by setting aside $875/month over the course of the firefighters working years. I assume this is mostly done by the city, with some possible matching done by the firefighter himself.

Now, I ask again:

Is this an unreasonable amount of money to pay a firefighter?

[DarrinS]

Heritage VRWC stink tank has as much credibility as Fox Repug Propaganda network

Reason is libertarian.

What's this VRWC acronym you are constantly spewing?

[RandomGuy]

Reason is libertarian.

What's this VRWC acronym you are constantly spewing?

Very Right Wing Conspiracy

[TeyshaBlue]

Vast.

[RandomGuy]

He wants to take away collective bargaining rights from some unions but not others.

Why is that, Darrin?

That is a question that you will probably not get Darrin to answer.

He does surprise one on occasion with a fit of honesty, tho', so he gets the benefit of "probably".

[CosmicCowboy]

Doing it the hard way yields, at a modest 3% return over inflation of 3%:
$1,083,098.62
If you distributed this amount in 360 equal payments of 4555 (+inflation over time), it would total this starting number.

To achieve that amount, the city would have to reserve much less than this figure over the 33 years of service.

To achieve this amount of reserve required for 33 years, would be about $875 per month.

Assuming a 6% return, this would mean an investment of some $208,000 in present day money over the course of 33 years.

Not entirely a "break the bank" scenario to me.

Time.
Value.
Of.
Money.

(edit)
The above calculation is what the City of San Antonio would have to set aside to save up for their fireman's pensions.
Assumptions:
22 year old firefighter works for 33 years and retires at age 55, living to age 85.
3% inflation, 6% investment yield for city reserving fund over the entire 68 year span

Cosmic Cowboy, using "simple math" came up with $2.5M future dollars spent on the fireman's pension.

I came up with $1.6M, to be arrived at by setting aside $875/month over the course of the firefighters working years. I assume this is mostly done by the city, with some possible matching done by the firefighter himself.

Now, I ask again:

Is this an unreasonable amount of money to pay a firefighter?

You forgot health care. I specifically said benefits and not pension.

[RandomGuy]

You forgot health care. I specifically said benefits and not pension.

aaah.

That changes things a bit.

The amount to reserve for health benefits is MUCH harder to estimate, given the uncertainty of health cost inflation, copays, etc.

$2.5M over the course of 30 years between the health insurance and pension does seem to be reasonable then.

That would make the set-aside closer to $1200-$1300 per month over the course of his working life, *if* you chose to have the fund 100% ready by then.

Here is where accounting rules will come back to bite you in the ass:

That isn't the way a lot of government's account for their pensions.

They dont' set aside anything, and hide the costs of their future promises, i.e. "underfunded". Retirement costs come out of present funds a lot of the time.

[RandomGuy]

If you want some scary reading, google:

unfunded government pension liabilities

or soemthing similar.

Here is a good starter from the Americans for Tax Reform
http://www.atr.org/unfunded-pension-obligations-factor-state-credit-a5805#

[Marcus Bryant]

If you want some scary reading, google:

unfunded government pension liabilities

or soemthing similar.

Here is a good starter from the Americans for Tax Reform
http://www.atr.org/unfunded-pension-obligations-factor-state-credit-a5805#

Thanks. This is disturbing. Everyone, of course, says it is, but when it comes down to doing something about it (tax collection increases & benefit reductions) then we're back to standard political posturing.

At this point it's going to take an external shock to force the obvious solutions to happen.

[EVAY]

Unfunded government pension liabilities are a huge problem.

They used to be a huge problem in the private sector. Because they were such a problem there, GAAP forced the private corporations to start showing the unfunded or underfunded pensions as a liability. The result was changes in pensions, as well as changes in how they were funded.

The people who were NOT forced to go along with GAAP accounting for unfunded pensions were governments.

So, is the answer to screw the government workers, or is the answer to force governments at the state and local levels to show the same sort of accounting for unfunded liabilities that private enterprise is using, so that their municipal bond offerings can be more reasonably assessed?

[RandomGuy]

Thanks. This is disturbing. Everyone, of course, says it is, but when it comes down to doing something about it (tax collection increases & benefit reductions) then we're back to standard political posturing.

At this point it's going to take an external shock to force the obvious solutions to happen.

It will build up and get worse every year, until the problem hits some tipping point where the problem is big enough to scare people into doing what needed to have been done years ago.

[DarrinS]

Very Right Wing Conspiracy

Ok, it all makes sense now.

[boutons_deux]

VAST Right Wing Conspiracy

If y'all want articles describing its history, the players, the instruments ...

(I'm holding my breath)

also

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

[Wild Cobra]

That would make the set-aside closer to $1200-$1300 per month over the course of his working life, *if* you chose to have the fund 100% ready by then.

The problem is that state and federal agencies don't set it aside. Very few invest it, but most who have used investors that lose their money. It's future tax payers that pay for it. The whole government employee benifit thing generally becomes a ponzie scheme.

[RandomGuy]

The problem is that state and federal agencies don't set it aside. Very few invest it, but most who have used investors that lose their money.

More invest and set aside than you seem to indicate here.

The state of California employee pension fund is one of the largest pools of invested money in the US, to my understanding. They make fair returns.

I don't know exactly what you base your "most have lost their money investing" statement on though.

[Marcus Bryant]

CalPERS took a large hit in '08 (of course, not the only institutional investor to suffer then).

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually, it was in '09 (their FY ends 6/30):

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-15/calpers-gains-11-4-best-performance-in-three-years.html

[boutons_deux]

OH Repugs sneak a hate provision, legislating their "stern fatherly" imposition of their backward morals:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/hate.jpg

Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/03/ohio-union-gay-couples/